The court will examine the legality of a search in a CBD store in Limassol following a company complaint

The issue of shops selling cannabis products, so-called “CBD oil shops”, has once again drawn attention. The police, together with the pharmaceutical service, conducted an investigation, but one of the companies questioned it, claiming that the search was carried out without a warrant, although an arrest warrant was later obtained.

A Supreme Court judge, approached by the company, decided to examine the possibility of annulling the order to seize property if it turns out that the lower court was misled.

The case details are as follows: at the request of the Limassol police director, confirmed by the sworn testimony of a local police station officer, on 19 June 2025 the Limassol court issued a seizure order for 23 packages of products found and seized on 17 June at the “CBD OIL SHOP” in Limassol.

The police officer stated that, together with a pharmacist and two sergeants, she searched the shop in the presence of its director. On the pharmacist’s advice, she discovered and seized products, which were later registered as physical evidence.

The company’s lawyer, K. Christodoulides, stated that the first-instance court made a serious mistake and exceeded its powers by making an incorrect decision. The company claims that the search was conducted without a warrant and that the court was misled by the investigative authorities, which influenced the property seizure order.

The Supreme Court, reviewing the case, noted that the sworn statement did not specify whether the search of the “CBD OIL SHOP” was conducted with or without a warrant, nor did it clarify the legal basis for entering the premises. The statement contained no facts proving a link between the seized products and the alleged crimes.

The court stressed that the applicant for a warrant is obliged to disclose all important facts and circumstances. If the statement lacks essential data or provides incomplete information, it casts doubt on the lawfulness of the warrant issued. Misleading the court on important details effectively renders the warrant invalid.

In this case, the Supreme Court noted that ambiguities regarding the justification for entering the shop raise questions about the correctness of the lower court’s decision, particularly regarding its jurisdiction and ability to issue the contested order. This is supported by the applicants’ arguments.

Therefore, the court allowed the company to file a motion to annul the order to preserve evidence and scheduled a hearing for 9 April 2025.